Grace Chitambira v Megapak Zimbabwe Limited

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/204/23
5 JULY 2023 & 10 JULY 2023
HARARE
CASE NO LC/H/144/23
In the matter between:-
GRACE CHITAMBIRA
APPLICANT
---------


==============================

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
ZIMBABWE 5 JULY 2023 & 10 JULY
2023 HARARE,

JUDGMENT NO LC/H/204/23

CASE NO LC/H/144/23

In the matter between:-

GRACE CHITAMBIRA

APPLICANT

MEGAPAK ZIMBABWE LIMITED

RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Applicant

In Person

For the Respondent

S. Sagomba (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA, J:

This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The law on leave to appeal is settled. See CMED v Dombodzvuku SC 31-12.. A reading of the grounds of the intended appeal shows that applicants seeks to impugn the findings of fact by the court aquo that there was nothing remiss of the disciplinary committees conclusion that the employee was guilty since she favoured the committee with conflicting medical certificates on the same issue thus casting aspersions on the authenticity of same.

The applicant states that the court erred by not determining the issue that the certificates clearly spoke to the fact that she was unwell at the relevant period. It however needs to be observed that the enquiry which led to her dismissal was not that her illness was doubtful but rather that she had been absent without leave.

The reason for the calling of the medical certificates was for the disciplinary committee to satisfy itself that the applicant’s absence was excusable and supported by medical evidence. Sadly as stated earlier the conflicting reports could not satisfy the committee hence its conclusion that applicant was guilty. It need be emphasised that proof in labour cases is on a balance of probability See ZESA v Dera 1998(1) ZLR 500(S). To that extent there was need for the applicant to demonstrate that the disciplinary committee conclusions were ill founded in fact that they were grossly irrational. See **Hama v National Railways of Zimbabwe 1996 ZLR 664(S)**. It is settled that the appeal court’s duty is not to substitute its discretion for that of the tribunal *aquo* but to only assess if on the evidence tendered before the tribunal *aquo* it can be concluded that there was gross irrationality in the decision of the matter. In the matter at hand the court concluded on the facts before the disciplinary committee that it was within bounds to conclude that applicant had erred as alleged. It is the court’s view that there is no point of law crying out for determination by the Supreme Court in that respect. The application for leave to appeal being without foundation should fail.

**IT IS ORDERED THAT**

Application for leave to appeal being without merit it be and is hereby dismissed. Each party bears own costs.

Gill Godlonton & Gerrans, Respondent’s Legal Practitioner
--- END OCR FALLBACK ---